Draft?

If I am working on a draft in my user space, when it's finished, do I just move it to article space, or do I need to go through some sort of process? - Purplewowies (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You can move it once complete... no process. Jon@talk:~$ 19:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

QD tages

User:Lemuel.asibal is removing QD G11 tags instead of just adding a {{wait}} to the article. Do we need better instructions for new users on what to do when such an tag is placed on an article? Racepacket (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You should probably tell the user that what they are doing is wrong, and ask them to stop. If they don't, the administrators' noticeboard is probably your place since you're asking for administrative action (delete). --Orashmatash 10:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe the administrative action is completed. I am asking if everyone thinks that the template should be rewritten to be more direct. Racepacket (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The template currently reads, "If you think this page should not be deleted, please add {{Wait}} below this message, and then say why on this page's talk page. Please do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself."

Categorizing articles with issues

I've noticed that category processing isn't consistent for articles that are tagged with some kind of issue or error.

For some errors/issues, all articles are put into a single category whether or not they have dates given. Example: {{Contradict}} puts all articles into Category:Self-contradictory articles, and there are no categories with dates.

Some errors/issues have 3 categories. I couldn't find a good example of this, but it seems to be that articles are put into one category when a date is given, another category if no date is given, and all articles are put into a third category whether or not a date is given.

I thought it would be good to make this processing consistent, but which way? Or is there a reason not to make it consistent? Thoughts? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Off topic a bit for the section, but what I would find extremely helpful is a central place of all maintenance categories. A place where I could see what is complex, et cetera. The stuff I could do if I had a central place to work. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 03:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

They both have a lot of subcategories that contain articles that need work. This is one of the things I hope to simplify in my work with this. Does that help?--Auntof6 (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Does no one have any comment on the original question? Have I not waited long enough for responses? Would anyone have a problem if I just be bold and pick one of the options? The reason I'm interested in this is that some tagged articles fall through the cracks with the way things are done now. For example, if a date is given but the dated category is not defined, and there's no category that holds all tagged articles (dated or not), then the article doesn't show up in a defined category. That can happen with option #2. I'm also looking at differences between processing an individual tag such as {{refimprove}} and using the "refimprove" parameter in {{Articleissues}}. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

ethnicity objectivity complaint

I have a near conspiratorial grievance with Wikipedia. There seems to be a concerted and consistent effort to purge certain unpopular facts about people's backgrounds in their articles. The facts shouldn't be altered by the current cultural marxist zeitgeist. If they are going to report anybody's ethnicity, they should report everybody's ethnicity. If someone is part "Jewish" but has "other" ancestors, they don't become just "Jewish". Their "other" ancestors' ethnicities must be reported. If you're going to report on one of their ancestors, you must report on them all, or you undermine your objectivity and credibility. All I demand is uniformity and fairness, that is all. I find these trends disturbing. I have altered multiple articles that comport to this trend. This is my official formal complaint and mandate that Wikipedia follow this paradigm. I'm left wondering, are some "special", "chosen" ancestors more important than others? And remember, you can't choose your genetic and ethnic history. It's a matter of fact, not opinion. You can identify culturally with a group but that does not render you ethnically of that group at all, let alone entirely. Don't conflate the two. That's also fact, not opinion. The website might even be wise to segregate the two. No more promoting some groups and their successes and denigrating or censoring others. Just facts, how's that? That's what encyclopedias are supposed to be about.

The IP you left this message under has only made two edits, and neither of them was to an article. Would you mind giving examples of the articles you have altered? Also, please sign your posts. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Complaint about a specific webpage

I am upset about a particular webpage. I am not an expert, and I don't claim to be an expert, but simple math and first hand knowledge result in me concluding that the webpage in question is wildly inaccurate. In particular, I am speaking about the webpage for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In one part of the page the claim is made that only 3% of the population is not Muslim. In another portion of the page, the claim is made that 20% (1/5) of the population is non-resident (immigrant-work permit). Having grown up in Saudi Arabia, I will concur to the second claim, but I question how the initial claim can be true if the second claim is true. I don't believe it can be. I also object to references of suppression of other belief systems in the KSA. I have several photographs in my possession documenting "open" and "other" holidays which were celebrated in the KSA. In particular, my favorite photograph has on display a Halloween float. This float has a "Happy halloween" sign written in arabic. The people who are standing in front of the float are (presumably, from attire) from India, America/or Europe, and from Saudi Arabia.

There is a great tolerance for other faiths in the KSA. If, as a Christian, I can presume, I would quote from the Qu'ran:

“Say: ‘Unbelievers, I do not worship what you worship, no do you worship what I worship. I shall never worship what you worship, nor will you ever worship what I worship. You have your own religion and I have mine.” (Qur’an 110:1-6)
. . . Do not say to one who offers you peace, “You are not a believer,” seeking the spoils of this life. For God has abundant treasure. You used to be like them, after all, and then God blessed you. [Qur’an 4:94]

I do not understand how I can put any faith into Wiki content, when such blatant misrepresentations are allowed to continue without contemplative editing.

Yet another case where a reader mistakes us for enWP. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

One wonders how that's even possible... Normandy(talk) 11:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this demonstrates a good thing about Simple English Wikipedia. We have a clearly marked simple "In Box" for complaints. The Village Pump on En Wikipedia is so complex that an experienced user could get lost in it. Racepacket (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but this is not the place for posting requests to do with the English Wikipedia. This belongs on the English village pump. The English Vil' Pump isn't too difficult to find your way around since the sections are clearly labelled at the beginning. --Orashmatash 20:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘ Hello there. I have had a look at Saudi Arabia (please click on the link, it will take you to our article, not the one at the English Wikipedia), and I have found that it talked about "other religions being forbidden", or a very similar wording. I have changed this to say that the state religion is (Sunni) Islam, and that a certain school of thought was very important in the country. Where possible, I added a reference (to what looks like the English version of the Saudi constitution). While I personally think that being Christian (or generally: non-Muslim) you will have a difficult time in such countries, such claims need to be backed up with reliable sources. In any case, since this is a project anyone can edit, feel free to do so, and improve the article as you see fit. --Eptalon (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Images in Cats.

As I'm sure most have seen, we have a ton of QDs. I haven't touched them because they raise a question that I've never seen before. Do we want to categorize images? Our QD policy says we can't upload locally, it doesn't say we can't create the File space pages and categorize them. What does the community think? Do we want to allow them to be categorized here, or not?

My personal opinion is to not have them. Many of them are already categorized on Commons, so I don't feel they need to be categorized here as well. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Is your issue whether to have the files here at all, or whether to categorize them once they're here? I think there are more images here than those that have been QD'd. If they're here, I don't see a reason not to categorize them. If they shouldn't be here, then they should be moved to Commons. A quick spot check showed that at least one (File:Bandeira do Pará.svg) is used. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I think that is where the confusion is. None of the images, that I can tell, are actually here. They are all on commons. When you check the history of those images, it shows that you were the first contributor. Until the categorization, they actually didn't have pages here, as they are hosted at commons.--Gordonrox24 | Talk`

Oops, sorry if I caused a problem. If that's the case, then why is the URL here when I look at the images, rather than being on Commons? I plead guilty to a lot of them (especially the Brazilian flag ones), but there are some that either I've never touched (for example, File:0010010011.png) or that I'm not the first one in the history (for example, File:Neuron1.jpg).

Yep, the link will show that you are on simple still. When you view those images, in the very top right corner of your screen, you will see this. That means it is an image hosted on commons. Some images are uploaded here, like the File:0010010011, to show the software when we are discussing it. It probably could be deleted.

You will also see a large template below the image that says "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below." -DJSasso (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup I would delete them since the files aren't housed here. -DJSasso (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I am completely outside my field of expertise on the article Nairs. An IP left this message in the Sandbox: "Also this article does not cite any sources for information. It is made for the purpose of defaming nair community." The IP tried to copy over the En Wikipedia article. diff but was reverted. Could we please reach a consensus and not treat this as simple vandalism. As the article stands, it reads like a racial slur. Many thanks! Racepacket (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I would delete the page. It offers no real sign of notability and is completely unreferenced and is an orphan. We don't need pointless stubs like this. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at template {{NBA roster header}}? Some of its formatting code is showing up as text in things that use it. I don't know enough about templates to figure it out myself. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auntof6 (talk • contribs)

Consideration may be warranted for adding an included maintenance category to the template {{Moveto}}. Not realy certain how much this is needed as the problem would really only affect very new users and IP editors (those editors without the ability to move articles) who know enough to actually use the template.

Either way, there are currently 2 articles tagged with it (both by me so again, not likely a huge need for this) that need moving. 70.184.168.201 (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I have done what you ask. Is this what you mean? Normandie 12:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Functionally yes, but the category should more likely be along the lines of Category:Pages to merge in the Article issues category rather than listing the page as maintenance templates. This would allow for it to be easily tracked from the issues category. 70.184.168.201 (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be able to help you, but I have no idea what you're asking to be done. If we add Category:Pages to merge to both merge templates, it would be confusing since the {{merge}} template already uses that category. Could you please clarify what you'd like to be done? Thanks. --Orashmatash 16:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest something like "Requested page moves" or "Proposed page moves". 70.184, did you tag those just because you can't move them yourself, or do you want discussion to take place? If just because you can't move them, you can just post a request here for someone to move them.

By the way, Normandie, I undid your change for now because it puts category "Wikipedia maintenance templates" on the articles that use the template, which isn't what we want. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

In both of these cases, discussion of the move really was not needed. As the template is not protected, I could have gone ahead and made the change myself but thought it better to bring up the situation first in case there were other matters with the change I did not know of. Better to give the opportunity for discussion rather than one person just deciding it should be one way or the other.70.184.168.201 (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Done and done. Cat was created -named per Auntof6's suggestion- and placed in Article issues so it doesn't get lost and the pages tagged have been moved (and minor fixes taken care of in the process: -tag, disambig'd Seneca, iw fixes) Pure Evil (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Issues with convert template

I don't know what's causing it, but there seems to be an issue with {{convert}} right now. It is inserting what seems like a line break after the use of the template. See Wheeling_Tunnel#Making_the_tunnel for an example. Can anyone fix it? Only (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it for you. Let me know if it happens again. There is some testing code in the template which may be causing the problem, but I don't actually know. --Orashmatash 14:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Big concept in small words?

Some big words have special meanings and connotations to them. To use another word would be difficult, because the big word is the perfect word that fits the context. Take "recidivism", for example. This may look like a mouthful, but really it means the tendency to return to former behavior. I have a hunch that this Simple English Wikipedia, if it wants to describe certain words with special meanings, would have to make the articles more wordier rather than sticking to brevity. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think so, too. I don't think that's a problem, though. When you learn a word, you usually have to have it explained using multiple other words. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Template programming error

Several templates perform mathematical calculations to put an icon on top of a specific map location. The Geobox template generates this error in the Marengo, Illinois article, "<div style="position:absolute; left:Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "["px; top:Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "["px; padding:0;">" Similarly, the {{Infobox settlement}} produces the same error in Duluth, Minnesota. Can help would be appreciated. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The fault lies in the placement data of the USA2 location map template. As this map data is a bit extensive and not even supported still on en:wp, it would be best to either use the state map or (as I did) shift to the standard USA map. 70.184.168.201 (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

IP 70.184.168.201 fixed Duluth, but not Marengo. I looked at what he did and changed the locator from Illinois to Illinois2. This change gets rid of the error message but puts the push pin one county to the left of where it should be. So I copied over en:Template:Geobox locator Illinois. It works correctly. Does anyone object to this fix? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi all! I started this guide to RS for the students in this course supported by the United States Education Program, but now I think it'd be useful to integrate some of the information into our WP:RS page, which is not very simple or detailed. Thoughts? sonia♫ 02:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. I had similar thoughts when working on the Saturn article for VGA. Many of the sources were challenged for reliability. It would be interesting to put in some specific examples and why the were either accepted or rejected. There were also issues to do with format and citations too, which are not in the MOS, but came up in GA/VGA discussions. Some of these need to be included. We should mention the Firefox cite tool as well - one of my most useful addons. We should probably link to Credo users, who may be able to assist with reliable citations for other editors. Anyhow, you make a start and I will help. --Peterdownunder (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've merged the info at the RS page into my userspace page (not vice versa, because I don't feel right about unilaterally making a major change to a guideline without a sandbox page), and added a reference to the Cite4Wiki addon. Formatting sources etc should be documented at the WP:Citing sources page, not the RS page, but that needs a good work-over too. sonia♫ 03:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The obvious question from a newcomer would be: can the source be in any language or just English, or just Simple English? Racepacket (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think English is preferred, but for many articles there is none suitable (if any). I know I have had to rely on Google to translate a page or two. If a non English source is used then that has to be shown in the ref (usually language=Goobledegook or whatever)--Peterdownunder (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘ Racepacket (and others), do feel free to edit it! I mean the page to be a sandbox for a new version of the RS guideline, and I'm not very good at wording things simply so that the meaning is maintained. sonia♫ 09:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This has reminded me that there were contributions on the talk page of Reliable sources which dealt particularly with science. As they had been generally approved of, I've added them to the main page. It doesn't conflict with more general comments such as Sonia's. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I tried to put the rule on self-published sources simply in the draft. Please take a look. Racepacket (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Tweaked a bit, which I hope is fine. @Macdonald-ross: Those are sensible additions, certainly. sonia♫ 07:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Formal proposal

I'd like to replace WP:RS with the current contents of User:Sonia/On RS, plus what Macdonald-ross has recently added to the former about science-related reliable sources. Any objections? sonia♫ 23:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Players of the Austrian football national team

Is it correct to file Laura Feiersinger in this category or is it better to creat a new category Players of the Austrian football women national team ?--Werner100359 (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If it is a single person it would be correct to put them in that category. -DJSasso (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody take a look at my draft?

Can somebody look at my draft and tell me things that still need to be fixed before it can be put in article space? Especially anything about too-complex English, I feel like I'm really bad at that! :) - Purplewowies (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No clue why these images are not auto migrated to Commons... they meet scope and licensing. I did some checking, I see more candidates... surely they made a bot. I might step over to Commons later to see if there is a project that is doing that over there. Very respectfully, Jon@talk:~$ 01:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Pictures aren't auto migrated because of licensing issues. Each one has to be checked by a human first before they can be migrated. There are people that do it. But there are thousands of new images added every week, it is an ongoing task. -DJSasso (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Strange coding query

What is this strange coding: [[my:အင်ဇိုင်း]] It appears under 'other languages'. What does it do? Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That is an "interwiki link". It gives a link to an article in a different-language Wikipedia. This one is for the language whose ISO 639 code is "my", which is for the Burmese language. Interwiki links are most often used to link to equivalent articles in the other-language wikipedias. I don't know which article you were looking at, but look at San Francisco, California -- don't edit it (yet), just look at it. In the left-hand column there is a section called "In other languages". The links in that section come from coding like the example you give, for many different languages. The coding for this one looks funny because the language in question doesn't use the same alphabet as English. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the character set we use does not include a font for the Burmese language? Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be the character set on your own computer that is missing. Not anything to do with us here at the wiki. If you do a search on the web you can find the missing character sets and download them. Only takes a few minutes. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Wheeling Tunnel at GA

Wheeling Tunnel has been sitting at Wikipedia:Proposed good articles for a little while without much recent comment/guidance. Can I get some more editors to help with reviewing? Or "vote" on it for passing or failing GA criteria? I'd rather not see this close because of lack of comments/activity. Thanks! Only (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

List of countries by population

Updated, but now I have a bunch of flag templates to fix. :) haha -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Change summary box

I have learnt, somewhat to my surprise, that filling one's change summary box, or ticking the small change square, is not mandatory even for anonymous users. However, it is really helpful to those of us who watch a large number of pages. I would think we ought to make it mandatory, at least for anonymous users. Alternatively, its importance should be stressed to every new user in the welcome flag. Only a brief note is needed to let watchers know the rough significance of the edit. Most of the regulars do it, of course, but one runs across users who prefer not to. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with forcing IPs to do it is that, if they are vandalising, they will put a "fake" edit summary. If we overlook these "fake" edit summaries because they appear to be helpful, then vandalism will go unchecked. DJDunsie (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that the particular IP has trust and control issues based on events before I arrived here. In general, I find that change summaries are very important if you are searching through a long history of a much-changed article. I agree that people on new changes patrol should not trust the edit summaries (or the change in the number of characters) and should actually look at the change. People with named accounts and IP editors should be treated with friendship and respect. So, we can't "force" either type of user to use the change summary box. This is just another consequence of an all-volunteer project. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I would note that edit summaries are not expected or required on changes that are obvious in nature. So we can't actually go around forcing editors to use them. -DJSasso (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking in

Hello all, I wanted to check in with everybody. I turned in my permissions several months ago because I knew I wouldn't be able to edit much because of some health issues I've been dealing with, and I don't think those should just be sitting around unused for site security purposes. As my health issues have improved, I'm back and look forward to writing new articles and collaborating with everyone else. Kansan (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, good to hear your health issues are improving. Good to have you back :) Yottie=talk= 23:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you wish your permissions to be turned back on? Jon@talk:~$ 00:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If the community didn't object, I wouldn't mind having the admin bit back. I don't mind going through the community again if need be. Kansan (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

After consulting the policy on inactive administrators, your contribution history for, and your resignation request I made the following findings: Your request was not done to avoid scrutiny or review, i.e. under a cloud, and the inactive admin policy at this time, does not apply to you, as you do not meet the criteria. That being said, I've restored the bits. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 04:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back Kansan, nice to see you around here again. -Barras (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I say this every time; I have no objections in this case, but I disagree with just giving users back their permissions without discussion. I feel we should have a token discussion before giving the tools back. On the other note, welcome back. Normandie 13:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I especially didn't comment on this, but yes, we know that Jon's usually in rush, as it looks like. Same happened when I returned, weill asked for my flags back. -Barras (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It is standard to give back flags automatically to admins who give them up who aren't under a cloud. Its pretty much standard WMF operating. In our case we made a specific exception to that standard to say that admins who fall afoul of our inactivity policy don't qualify for that. -DJSasso (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the full policy. In fact I actually disagree with the rights being removed in the first place but that's a different discussion for another day... Normandie 15:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There was no policy guidance contrary to him getting his rights back. I checked. The Inactive Admins policy did not apply to him since he was not inactive enough. The historical precedent here and really, on the other projects, is exactly as I did. If you all want something different, please discuss it in a general area then code it in to a policy us crats can read and follow. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 23:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't see the big deal, this isn't controversial... I've done the same thing twice and people have never had an issue. Don't see why it's an issue now. Oh yeah, welcome back Kansan!!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Great Lakes

I was watching the news on television last night which had a report on invasive species in the Great Lakes. This lead me to spend about five hours editing that article. Another editor does not believe that the material (which is scientific) is simple enough to be allowed to remain. diff. Please note that what I produced was different than what is on En Wikipedia. diff. Could some other editor(s) please take a look and help us working out a solution? I certainly do not want to "edit war" over this content. Many thanks. Racepacket (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As a genralisation, it is both wrong and pointless for us to ape enWP so closely as to make little difference. IMO almost all our articles should be not only simpler, but also shorter. When I read the original stub, I saw the ambiguity in the 'very big' claim at the top. I have tried to tackle the problem of surface area vs volume by using volume as in enWP's List of lakes by volume. In doing so, I ran across the Caspian Sea, which is both a lake and not a lake. Well, anyway, I pause now so others can have a look. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that Macdonald-ross has made a large improvement on the geography aspect of the article. Assuming that Gotanda's issue is complex wording, that concern does not explain why he deleted the tables with the data on the size and elevation of each lake. I had handled the ambiguity by saying the Great Lakes cover the most surface area of any freshwater lakes in the world, but that was reverted as well.

The issue of invasive species and pollution is a important public policy issue that has a lot of press coverage. So, I added an ecology section to the Simple article based on En Wikipedia. I did leave out selective sentences and also whole sections of the En Wikipedia article. I think that the portions that I selectively included should be allowed to remain, but again, I welcome other thoughtful views. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's undeniable that the page should have some eco-threat content. It's really a question of doing it in a Simple way. I've now put in a small section. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Macdonald-ross is a fair-minded person and appreciate his further work today. I still do not understand what was wrong (or "unsimple") with the table that I added which had a column for each lake that listed: Surface area, Water volume, Elevation of the lake level, Average depth, Maximum depth, and Major settlements. May I add it back? Also, I noticed that we are going from 19 source footnotes and two clarifying notes to five source footnotes. I understand the idea of writing at the 10,000 ft level, but I think we can do more to serve the ESL reading public. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem with the table. I think Gotunda is under the mistaken impression that we can't have anything replicated from en which isn't true. Personally I think maybe he should just disengage from any situation that involves you. -DJSasso (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

DJ, I am not "under the mistaken impression that we can't have anything replicated from en". I have copied simple content such as lists from En. I may have been mistaken in removing the table, but the rest of the article was a pretty clear copy of En. I am under the, I believe correct, impression that we should not have wholesale copying from En that has not been simplified. It is discouraging to readers and the Help and How to sections of this wiki clearly explain how to simplify articles. As Macdonald-ross has pointed out above, there are good reasons not to copy En.

As far as Racepacket's additions go, they have drawn my attention not because they are Racepacket's, but because they are very frequently unsimplified or minimally changed copies from En. I have tried to help him simplify and I have simplified some of his articles for him. At times he ignores suggestions or denies any complexity. He persists in copying and pasting complex content from En. I have treated copies by other editors in the same way. I am not concerned about the editor, but about effect such complex articles will have on this wiki over time. We have enough of them already and there is no reason to continuously add to the problem. When I encounter new, complex, copied content I feel it improves the wiki to mark it complex or remove it as needed. Nothing is lost by doing so since the history is available. Again, sorry about the table, but the rest was clearly copied and complex and therefore not helpful regardless of which editor added it. Gotanda (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I spent five hours simplifying the article, so it certainly is not a "copy and paste." I am still learning how to write Simple English and know that I am not perfect. So I am open to correction. But let's give my contributions serious consideration. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have worked to improve this article. Racepacket (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Why simplicity is important

The following is a copy from the Great Lakes talk page. In effect, it is a sequel to the above, and this is probably the right place for it: (Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC))

It is important not to import excessive detail from enWP. This is the key issue: If a reader wants more detail, they can find it on enWP. But if a reader wants to find a simpler version of something on enWP this is the only place they can go to get it. It is why we were created. The more we look like a mirror site for enWP, the less we are doing our job. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that we should rely on enWP for more detail. I accept that Simple English wikipedia may be less detailed that EnWP. However, both have adopted the news story format for articles. All essential details are in the lead paragraph/lead section with the central idea in the first sentence. So a reader can stop after one sentence, after one paragraph, after one section, or can skip to a particular section that is important to him. I ask myself, "Who will read this article?" In some cases it could be a child. In other cases, it could only be a well-educated person whose first language is not English.

We owe our readers a reasonably comprehensive account. For example, a Simple English biography of Richard Nixon should not leave out Watergate and his resignation. An article on asbestos should not leave out its health effects. Similarly, Great Lakes must cover pollution and invasive species. If Simple had as many volunteers as enWP, we could have as many articles, sub-articles, detailed tables, custom illustrations, etc. Because we don't have many volunteers, I agree that we should confine ourselves to the more essential aspects. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No-one in their right minds would leave out Watergate on a Nixon article, nor the health aspects of asbestos. They are central to those articles. The phrase 'excessive detail' is obviously not meant to describe such central themes. I would add that, because of its huge readership, virtually all our readers will use English WP before they meet us. Therefore they will know where to go for a more complete account. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello all, as an editor I think it important that all the necessary information is present, in a suitable form. I am aware that certain sciences rely on a specific vocabulary, where the words used have specific meanings. When we have an article about that specific field of knowledge, we probably cannot do without that specific vocabulary, but we can add extra explanations. If someone is starting out in a field of knolwedge, they need to find their way around this vocabulary; they need to learn what specific words mean. When I read an article in an encyclopedia, this article should give me an overview of the subject, and the details necessary at that "level". It is clear that someone doing a history course, specialising in the French Revolution of 1789 will soon know more about the period that you would find in an encyclopedia article. On the other hand, the "generla-interest" reader will read the article. If they are interested enough, they will use the cited sources, but most readers probably will not do that. It is bad for us to point to another language version of Wikipedia "for more information". We can point to journal articles and books. When we look at "bringing over content" form other language-versions, we need to adapt it to our audience; to an extent, anyone can simplify a "general" article, but certain articles need subject-knowledge to simplify. That's where we lack editors with specific knowledge/interest most of the time. --Eptalon (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Defaultsort question

I moved my draft out of my subpage to the page Dylan and Cole Sprouse yesterday. I was looking over the article, and I noticed that this message was at the bottom of the article: "Warning: Default sort key "Sprouse, Dylan And Cole" overrides earlier default sort key "Dylan and Cole Sprouse"." I can only find one DEFAULTSORT in the change box (the same DEFAULTSORT that was in the enWP version I copied from). I don't know why this warning is there or how to get rid of it. (But I think that "Sprouse, Dylan and Cole" is the correct default sort key.) I also don't know which template has an "invalid date parameter" (the article is in the category "Articles with invalid date parameter in template"). Can anyone help? Thanks. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The sorting was a problem with a template on the page that I fixed. The date param I am looking into. -DJSasso (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"Articles containing potentially dated statements from February 2006 - Articles with invalid date parameter in template - All articles containing potentially dated statements" are a product of the As of template. 70.184.168.201 (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I knew the potentially dated statements one was from it. But not sure that the other is. -DJSasso (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the other one is coming from {{As of}}. I determined that by removing parts of the article until the message went away, then narrowing it down. I believe that template was recently updated from enwiki. Maybe something there wasn't compatible with something here. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I fixed it for now by taking out some of the new functionality. The problem is something to do with Template:Dated maintenance category. At least that is what is throwing the invalid date parameter category out. Will look further into it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The next Big Weekend

Building on the success of the "Big Biography Weekend", you are invited to take part in the next event. Based on the discussion above, Normandy, Yottie and I urge you to join in the Big Capital City Weekend, starting November 25 your local time and finishing when the sun finally sets on November 28. Cancel your social life, abandon your studies, don't go to work, send the wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend/lover/children away, and get ready to join in. More details here soon.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Rather than promise to be there, I will say that my city will be there! Racepacket (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Capital City Weekend

Here are some ideas on how to take part in the Big Capital City Weekend. Firstly, we will have a very broad definition, so Cpaital Cities will include:

Articles which are related to the above (for example an article on the Eiffel Tower in Paris would qualify.

Our goal is to increase the number and quality of Capital City related articles. What needs to done:

Missing articles need to be created

Stubs need to be expanded

All articles need at minimum a couple of references and a picture

Be bold, and do not hesitate to create further redlinks if they are needed, because some one else can create article at step 1 above.

Lastly, to avoid edit conflicts use the "inuse" tag. And, so we can measure what happens, start all your edit summaries with "CCW" for Capital City Weekend! Let's go and write.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Great idea. But how exactly can you keep a tab on how many capital cities are expanded? Albacore (talk·changes) 15:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Good question, I am going to count them. (Unless some techie can work out a technical solution). But the "number" is not really a critical issue. While it would be nice to know the total, the idea of a Big Weekend is to draw attention to something that needs some work, and get editors to focus their editing on it for a couple of days. It also gives editors the opportunity to work together.--Peterdownunder (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Results

Thanks to all the editors who took part in making improvements to articles on Capital Cities. Over the weekend there were 394 edits to capital cities and related articles.Peterdownunder (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

New Pages needs patrolling again

The backlog is coming back. I've done a few recently, but this needs attention from everyone, please. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Have we been featured somewhere on the web again? Wiki activity is higher than average. ChenzwTalk 15:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well when I Google'd the word "simple", our little site was the first thing that appeared. Maybe that's why? (proof) -Orashmatash- 21:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help out again. :) -Orashmatash- 16:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is 6th for me. The baclog has been cleared, though. Hazard-SJ ± 23:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, editors got it all cleared up again. It seemed like quite a burst of activity. Gotanda (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration Request

I have been thinking about creating a team effort project that we all can collaborate in. The project is about expanding WP:VITAL articles (and other articles not listed but are of importance in life) to WP:VGA status. An encyclopedia should be a place where people can get comprehensive information about a topic of choice, and since Simple contains mostly stub articles, I think its time to worry more about adding information then creating stubs that drive newcomers away to English Wikipedia. I've been thinking about having a two-month (December 1, 2011 - February 1, 2012) long drive called "Very Good Article Drive" (VGAD) and separating topics into groups. For an example: (these are just examples of articles that would be considered in the list; furthermore, we don't need 4 groups if consensus agree)

These groups could have a min of 3 users (per group) who work together in expanding the articles in their group to VGA status. However, users who work in a group can't work at another since that would be violating WP:NPOV. At the end of the drive, each group must review other groups articles and gather consensus on weather or not the article meets the criteria; this can lower chances that articles will remain at the nominations for a very long time. This isn't a "project" that needs its own page here, moreover, this team effort is just a collaboration to get vital articles to VGA status. One of the benefits of this are; (1) working as a team (2) building Simple Wikipedia as an encyclopedia (3) gaining viewership and users who aren't acquainted with Simple to join and best of all (4) it'll be fun :-) (my PoV) So what do you guys think? If you are interested in helping just say which group you would like to join. Best, Jonayo!Selena 4 ever 22:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Who decides which articles go in which groups? Do we vote? 87.127.233.23 (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)DJDunsie (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The idea of collaboration sounds like a good idea to me. Not sure which group I'd go with, though. I'll have a think... -Orashmatash- 16:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure, but once we have enough users to work as a team for one group maybe they can pick which four to work on. Best, Jonayo!Selena 4 ever 18:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Shall we sign somewhere if we're interested, to get a head count? DJDunsie (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well you can just bold which group you would like to collaborate with similar to what I and Yottie did. best, Jonayo!Selena 4 ever 19:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm very much a baseball enthusiast, and some time ago, PBP and I were thinking about rewriting the article since it's in awful shape. Although he's not around right now, obviously, I still could try to take it on. It may just need to be written almost from scratch, frankly. It's not an easy sport to explain. Kansan (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well you wont be doing it alone. Users in the Sports group would help out :-) Best, Jonayo!Selena 4 ever 20:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Now that you have your participants, how about moving this to your userspace? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Strange bot behaviour. Malfunction?

Hi everyone. I noticed quite a long time ago that the bot that updates WP:List of Wikipedians by number of changes has replaced the page with "This page is under maintenance". It was only earlier today when I discovered that it did this cross-wiki that I thought it may have been a malfunction or a mistake. I have no idea why it would do this... Input? -Orashmatash- 21:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, but it spelled "maintenance" wrong. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It did it because it is under maintenance. It was posting wrong edit counts I believe on a number of wikis so wasn't accurate. I am guessing the bot owner took it offline to fix it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Spacing issues

I'm looking at Iowa and comparing it with en:Iowa. It seems that our version has more space between the lines (1.5-spacing?) than the English Wikipedia's version does. Where does that come from? I looked around in MediaWiki:Common.css, but didn't find it - though I could be missing something. --PhilosopherLet us reason together. 00:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've took a print-screen of both articles and overlapped them with no background. I can't see the problem you see. The text as far as I can see is at the same line spacing. The infoboxes are a little different in width and style, maybe thats where its confusing you? Due to that the text on each line might end at a different word... Normandie 16:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I usually edit Wikipedia using either Safari (5.1.1) or Firefox (8.0.1), so I checked it in both. Firefox seems to show the two projects as having the same line spacing, while Safari really does show different line spacing - and in both the Vector and Monobook skins. Not a big deal, I suppose... --PhilosopherLet us reason together. 17:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If anything its probably better that we are slightly wider spaced...goes along with being simpler to read. -DJSasso (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Books

What is the procedure with books? I have come across Wikipedia:Books/chris_mitchell and Wikipedia:Books/Behak_Maken etc where there is only one page in it. Are we deleting them as they are not used, moving them to user pages (if thats even possible) or keeping them as they are user generated? Whats the deal? Normandie 12:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If they are only one page and haven't been touched in a long time I would probably put them up for deletion. But anything more than one page I would leave. -DJSasso (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, but also leave if in their own personal space. Different I think if in Wikipedia:Books/. I'd agree with the above though. Normandie 14:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I have recently noticed that the logo for this page was the old puzzle ball and I thought that it should be changed to the new one. I have seen this on it's talk page. Please visit that page. Thank you. —Η-θhi 14:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If you mean that you want the entire Simple logo to be changed (the picture at the top left), we'll most likely need community consensus (see here). –Orashmatash 19:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not recall, but I know it came up one of the last few times changing the ball had come up. Something along the lines that the WMF was gradually switching over wikis. But as I said maybe I am wrong. -DJSasso (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well how are we going to get community consensus? —Η-θhi 17:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

We get it right here. When people see this, they'll probably have some input. –Orashmatash 17:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

People will comment here if they think it needs to be changed or not. That is how consensus happens, by discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Do we need community consensus? Can't we just be WP:BOLD and update it to be like the other wikis... Normandy(talk) 21:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘ I would say we need to seek consensus to implement the change rather than being "bold." The reason being is that in the past we decided not to update it through discussion. Bold should not be used to go against previous consensus. Only (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hate to say this but; where was it discussed before and consensus that it should not be changed? Normandy(talk) 00:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet, you're the first to "cast a vote" on this one? Only (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Only. I saw that link to Meta and I re-considered that we should vote on this. I'm sorry, an honest mistake. -Orashmatash- 22:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

VGA reqiuirement references article on other Wikipedia?

Hello,

Our VGA requirement number 10 (Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced. This can either be done with <ref>..</ref><references/> tags, or as a list of publications. For articles that have references or external links on the English Wikipedia, there must be at least one in the Simple English article as well.) references the regular English language wikipedia. I think that this can lead to confusion. Potentially, we may have a VGA-candidate that does not exist on another wikipedia. Take the case of an editor coming from another Wikipedia (Chinese, Arabic, Russian, Ido...) improving an article that only exists in that Wikipedia to a standard that it can be a VGA candidate? - What about Simple having articles that do not exist in other Wikipedias? - Can those articles not reach VGA status? - For that reason I propose to get rid of the second part of the requirement (For articles that ...).

My take on that sentence is that it doesn't mean what you think it means. I think it means that if there are external links on the article that exists on English Wikipedia then the Simple article should have them as well. Which is true. -DJSasso (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with DJSasso. And frankly, do we really want articles here if they aren't notable enough for English Wikipedia? We need to be careful about that. Two separate projects, sure, but one language, just one's a simplified version of the other. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually have another idea for what it means - after originally bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Requirements for very good articles, I found the original discussion here. It seems to have been a proposal for being able to use 'Other websites'" sections as an alternative to inline references. Given that, I'd propose the following as a replacement of the second part of #10, and as similar to the first half of #10 on printed publications: "Content that is from online sources also needs to be referenced. This can either be done with <ref>..</ref><references/> tags, or as a list of other websites." --PhilosopherLet us reason together. 16:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a third reading, "If there is a corresponding EnWikipedia article AND that article has footnotes, the Simple English article should have at least one footnote. If there is a corresponding EnWikipedia article AND that article has external links, then the Simple English article should have at least one 'Other webpages.'" So, I would oppose the change, but would support simplifying the VGA criteria wording. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Help from administrator enrolling 9 students

What do I need to do to clear 9 French students to be editors of Simple Wikipedia. Where do they register? I plan to start them on definitions in Simple Wikitionary. The project begins on Monday 2:00 Paris time. what do I need to do. Mlane78212 (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No real clue, perhaps we will need a shell edit if there are no objections from the community. Jon@talk:~$ 02:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

My guess is cause our wiki has never voted to have the group. Personally for a wiki this small its a rather unnecessary flag as it is almost non-exist ant that it would ever be needed here. Even for the above situation I would have just pointed the instructor to the registration link for the students to register with. -DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Gemology

Hello! I just wanted to say that I am proposing a new wikiproject on Gemology. Discussion on the creation of the Project shall take place here. I support the move to create the Gemology Project. Shakinglord (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Weak oppose - Gemology is very specific. Perhaps you could make it a bit broader, because we don't have very many editors here. Also, you may want to re-name it WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, like en.wikipedia. I won't actually oppose it if there are lots of people willing to help. DJDunsie (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProjects are not official in any way, shape or form here - so suggesting it here and proposing it is completely redundant. If you would like to create it, go ahead and do it in your userspace, and if people want to join it, they will. Again... can we write an FAQs page somewhere? Goblin 00:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!

No, like an FAQs page. We have many, many pages explaining concepts and welcoming new users, pointing them in the right direction, but there are so, so many repetitive questions that have been asked throughout my (long) time here that it would be so much nicer to have the answers to all on one page... *shrugs* Goblin 01:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Barras!

I support this FAQs page. Perhaps as a subpage to Simple talk. I do see repetitive questions that could benefit from a FAQ page. Jon@talk:~$ 01:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better as Wikiproject Geology, I was planning to add Wikiproject Ironsmithy as well. Shakinglord (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't really do Wikiprojects here which is what we are trying to get across. We are different in that regard to en.wiki. Some people put a page in their user space to organize group efforts on things and call it a wikiproject but we don't really have them like en has them. -DJSasso (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘ I have created the FAQ page in my userspace here. It's not even close to finished, so everyone's additions and fixes are more than welcome. :) -Orashmatash- 00:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiKids - Vikidia

I'd like to advice you about this message that I sent to the WM Foundation mailing list a few week ago.

It is about kind of equivalent to simple in dutch, french and spanish, but intended for children.

By the way, I found this other message (Jun 2010) which says : "Considering the historical role of the children's encyclopedia, we might consider rescoping "simple" as "for children" -- this could help to increase participation and use, and clarify the role of these projects."

What do you think about it ? Astirmays (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the relationship with simple and children ? Nothing. Simple is a synonym of easy and not of chlidren. Consider simple as for chlidren is silly. I think that. Sincerely, Trilingual (DiskutiDiscut) 03:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that "normal" versions of Wikipedia (in most language, as soon as it is developped enought) is too dificult for children aged around 8 to 12, or even sometimes 15, 18, etc. They want, they claim and whenever they find it, they say they appreciate a more simple encyclopedia that would be written for them (among other). That's what they say on the Vikidia's guestbook (google translation)

I know that Simple is not intended to be for children, but a great part of it (I don't know which part, or to which extent) probably fit well for children.

To recognize that the content should fit to children does not exclude other reader target. I (will copy the first message) on Vikidia we beleive that if its content were not relevant to older people, it wouldn't be good either for children.

There is a great need of a wiki encyclopedia for children. Would you prefer that the one in english would be a seperate wiki or that it would be simple that would be rescoped so ? Astirmays (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This brings up an intersting debate we have done many times, that is to find out what our target audience is, and adapt to that audience. I will not focus on language issues, there are no simple versions of Dutch, French or Spanish Wikipedias. Suppose we "targeted" this wikipedia for the 8-15 crowd, this would mean:

Almost all scientific articles (as in "natural science") we have use domain-specific vocabulary. They would need to be rewritten without that vocabulary. This needs to be done by editors who come from the domain - since the editor rewriting needs to understand the subject. Since we constantly lack such editors, they would probably "drop out".

We would face issues that certain articles cannot be included, because the target audience "is not ready" for them - this would probably be articles about the human reproductive system, but might also include other articles - e.g. about evolution (I don't know how many creationists we currently have among our editors), or about arts (pictures such as The Nude Maya show a nude woman, after all; Michelangelo's David shows a nude man; nudity is very common in the Arts).

We have a big gap what concerns religious movements; I think even our mainstream Christianity-related articles are very bad.

Forget all articles about more advanced Maths or Physics: Who is able to explain to an 8-year old what a Klein bottle is and why it can't be filled; same exercise with a digon. Whats the difference between a line and a digon, in 2D they look the same...

In short, its probably safer to come up with a target group of "language laearners", as this avoids many of the problems above. Please let us know if another "simplified-language" version of wikipedia gets created, collaborating might be intersting. --Eptalon (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

About domain-specific vocabulary, at first read, I thought you were telling the contrary : that you banned this vocabulary because of simple norms, and that you would need to use it, to meet the educational norms, so...

About Klein bottle and digon, of course these subject are very specialised, but if you have them, their writing are not bad for children that would be interested to these subject.

big gap Every wiki has gaps, that's just why they are still openned for work...

About content issue that's also something every wiki has to deal with, on Vikidia, we keep in mind that it deals with children, but that isn't a everyday fear,

So your response sound like "there is too much risks in creating a wiki encyclopedia for children, the better is to have none". I thinks that it's a pity, because there still is a need. I guess that one pitfall you may fall in it to think that as soon as it deals with children, the content has to stick on a kind of curriculum model, which is not the case for an encyclopedia. I mean, that there is no worries to have about the fact that every children will not be able to get what a digon is, by reading the article. Still a few of them may be interested in it, such as other will be interested in the C-47 Skytrain, another in Maria Teresa Rafaela of Spain or anything else.

1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.

2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

I'm sorry...I'm not seeing the point here. If you think there is a need for a WikiKids in English, go make one at Vikidia. But we're not going to change our ways or mission because someone coming in from the outside says we should. Additionally, the US has not ratified the Convention on the Rights..., and since Wikimedia is based in the US, the conventions have no relevance here. And it's not like we're preventing children from using Wikipedia...they can and do. They have the right to seek, receive and impart information....no where does it say "this information must be put into ways they'd understand." Only (talk) 12:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What I pointed out above is based on experience I collected when editing this Wikipedia. I do not endorse the creation of "Wikipedias for special audences", but I am also not opposed to their creation. All I was trying to say is the group you are targeting your work at may be too specialised; by selecting that group you basically rule out writing about many subjects that could be interesting for people learning the language. As to the UN declaration, it is a very nice try, but as most UN declarations, its use is probably limited. Children are still developing, they do have at least one legal guardian. Some "limitations" in subject matter come from beliefs of this guardian, that the child must not see content of a given type, at a certain age. The model of any encyclopedia is that those people supplying the content are sufficiently knowledgeable in their field of knowledge. This means that you will also face the issue of motivating these people to do so. Given very few children will be interested in sub-atomic particles, or the nature of matter, how many people you think will write articles about these subjects, or simplify them? - Regarding domain-specific vocabulary: It is very difficult to write concise articles about certain subjects, without using it. Not using the vocabulary means you sacrifice precision and you need editors that understand the subject matter very well, so they can simplify it to a degree understandable by your audience. --Eptalon (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. However I can adress most of the arguments. "special audiences" I would say that 8 to 13 years old children is pretty wide, and the content can fit to other audiences. There is not so much subjects on which you can't have an article for children.

"The model of any encyclopedia is that those people supplying the content are sufficiently knowledgeable in their field of knowledge" I don't get it. I would say, of course and no in the same time. There is a small part of all the reader of a wiki that will edit article, but it still works. "you will also face the issue of motivating these people to do so" well, you do on Simple, as we do on Vikidia. "Given very few children will be interested in sub-atomic particles" If we have a gap in sub-atomic particles do you think that it really matters ? Anyway, article are made when by chance, a kid is interested in writing them on every moons (natural satellite) as it happened recently, it's a wiki you know.

We don't ban any specific vocabulary, it is not easy to choose to use it or not, but you can do it.

Still you're right that the convention was not ratified by the US, for some reason that might look like the one you give : "Some "limitations" in subject matter come from beliefs of this guardian, that the child must not see content of a given type, at a certain age" I mean any parent in the world can have in mind to watch over what his child is taught and what he has the opportunity to learn, but the idea of this watch may be broader in the US than in other country.

We don't plan to open a Vikidia in english soon, but in accordance with your response, if it is done one day, it probably would be a kind of fork of Simple English Wikipedia, because you have a lot of valuable content, and that editor of a wikikids in english wouldn't be eager to write it again rather to get it allready accomplished. Astirmays (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

My input is that this Simpple English Wikipedia should not be rescoped. I've seen several editors here who appreciate us because their first language is not English. I don't remember seeing any say they appreciate us because they're children. As far as articles that a target audience might not "be ready for": as an official policy, Wikipedia is not censored.

If a children's Wiki were to be established elsewhere, I believe the licensing on Wikipedia would allow articles from here to be used there if credit is given. (Someone please correct me if that's wrong.) The other Wiki could pick and choose which articles they wanted from here. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hell I know people that like us because we use a simpler form of English even if English is their first language. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 02:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've read and re-read the material on Foundation-L and the proposal above. I have to say that whilst I do not desire to quell discussion: I believe that a better place for this is going to be on the working lists (foundation-l) or meta. The discussion is proposing an entire re-purposing. Creating a new project would be better solution. It won't make sense to re-scope this one. Jon@talk:~$ 03:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I hear your response. However I beleive that as far as the matter was raised, it had to be brought up here once at least. I thank you for your anserw. Astirmays (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

An obvious point, not made above, is that typical school textbooks in the U.S. are tagged with grade levels, and sometimes produced under the supervision of state education committees. Inside the book, sections which are more detailed are flagged as such; and all chapters include an end section with typical questions based on the book. Teachers get an extra booklet with suggested answers to those questions. The whole system is improved by feedback from teachers, which is collected by the publishers and (after deliberation) used to help improve the next edition. Much the same applies to college textbooks. I think you can see from this what we are lacking, and why we would not be able to target more precisely. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This pattern of textbooks also exist in other countries, France included. It was criticized for a long time, most probably in the US as well. I schould search for a sensible critic in english of the use of textbooks as the main tool for teaching. The ones that can read french could read that text about it. Textbooks were criticised among others by Célestin Freinet (en:Célestin Freinet) and teachers involved in his movement. The aim of a Wikikids is obviously not to stick on the textbooks pattern. It has another relevance, which is roughly to give children the opportunity to get knowledge without subject partitioning. Actually, I would say that a Wikikids inherit both from Wikipedia and from the progressive education (en:Progressive education where I can read : "De-emphasis on textbooks in favor of varied learning resources"). Astirmays (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't the point I was making. I was making the point that any system used for learning is made better by relevant feedback. We don't have that. And since you've raised it, textbooks are still extremely inportant in education, and their use does not prevent the use of other methods. Obviously. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't a wiki one of the simpliest system to get feedback ? Astirmays (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of systemic issues that would apply here. One of which would be the verification of credentials. Forking form that is the fact we don't "approve" revisions. There would be a large undertaking. At fear of being repetitive, I would posit that making a project from the ground up with these challenges in mind may be a better solution. Very best, Jon@talk:~$ 14:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I just want to add, we don't check any credential an Vikidia, nor do we implement "approved revisions", we just work as Wikipedia on these matters, and Wikikids.nl does in the same way. We just disable the Special:EmailUser function, so that every exchange is open. Astirmays (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Last notice

Hey everyone, just letting everyone know that the collaboration project will begin Wednesday, December 14, 2011 and will run until January 14, 2012. For those wondering what the team effort is or would like to nominate an article please click on the wikilink for more information. Best, Jonayo!Selena 4 ever 17:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok we need consensus

I have so many people telling me so many different things about this, we need consensus to see what the "rule" is for certain. For three (American) holidays I have wished my fellow Americans a happy <Fourth of July/Thanksgiving> only to have it either reverted or complained about by either Dj or scream. I then find people that find nothing wrong with it (i.e. Normandy or Gordon), it's confusing so I need to know for certain through consensus, am I or am I not allowed to celebrate a holiday with a small thread like this on ST? Thanks. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 23:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never been one to understand the commotion. If somebody wants to spread some cheer, I don't see why we smack that down. It doesn't hurt to lighten the mood. "Any general discussions or anything of community interest is also appropriate here." I don't see why some cheer isn't part of our sense of community.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Because what is cheerful for one person might not be cheerful for another. The quote you have applies to things involving the encyclopedia. Its not a chat board. -DJSasso (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If someone I knew walked up to me and said "Happy Diwali!!]], I would 1) wonder what the hell holiday that was, and 2) think "Screw it" and with them a Happy Diwali right back. We commonly (sort of) celebrate holidays that have no meaning to us but do have meaning to the other person. (I only have a birthday once a year but it seems I am celebrating birthdays 2-3 times a week... and im not a mother but I celebrate that with other people.. Martin Luther King did nothing for me, but I celebrate (sort of), not Irish or Mexican but March 17th and May 5th get the nod). There is no reason to be upset that other people have holidays that I don't. Be polite, nod, wander off and forget about it. 70.184.168.201 (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

^The IP has said exactly my thoughts. You should not be offended by someone else's beliefs. That's your problem, not theirs. Tolerance people, tolerance. Normandie 10:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Tolerance goes both ways, you need to tolerate peoples wishes not to have such things shoved in their faces and only do it where appropriate. -DJSasso (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There isn't anything wrong with wishing people a happy holiday. It cheers me up and reminds me that this place isn't all serious. If people were allowed to put things like "happy holidays!", "seasons greetings!" and "merry Christmas!" in their signatures at Christmas, then why is it not allowed to wish people a happy Thanksgiving on Simple Talk? -Orashmatash 11:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

They shouldn't be putting those in their signatures. -DJSasso (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me if I don't spend too much time on this, and thank you for the discussion notification: I think it was highly inappropriate to just address Americans was all. Very best, Jon@talk:~$ 11:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing only American's celebrate Thanksgiving. But, many editors here wish each other Merry Christmas without stopping to think about those who are not Christian. And they shouldn't. Again, people shouldn't be offended by other's beliefs. Normandie 12:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be apolitical and neutral. Wishing someone a Happy Whatever is a violation of WP:SOAPBOX and technically WP:MYSPACE in that its a social thing not related to the building of an encyclopedia. If you wish to do such things do it on IRC where that is the point of it. People shouldn't be wishing Merry Christmas either. -DJSasso (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This is true also. However according to WP:SOAPBOX"Wikipedia is ... an online community of individuals interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect." - We give each other barnstars and messages of support and friendship for the point of mutual respect. I fail to see how wishing someone a Merry Christmas is a bad thing. It shows mutual respect and I can only see a positive outcome from that. Normandie 13:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's shows a lack of mutual respect if that person doesn't believe in Christmas or doesn't like Christmas. If it were an individual message to an individual person where you know they won't be upset with it then I would have less of a problem with it than a blanket message to the entire wiki. I think it shows a distinct lack of respect to do so. -DJSasso (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

How doe sit show disrespect? If you don't celebrate it or don't like it, ignore move on. It's not hard. To further my point, I read our soapbox policy and which part of that policy does it violate? I don't see it. And the MYSPACE argument could go either way. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 17:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's pushing a POV that is how. The if you don't like it ignore it is part of the disrespect thing. People shouldn't have to ignore it, you shouldn't inconvenience others for your own "enjoyment" for lack of a better word.. If you want people to respect your beliefs you should respect theirs which is why wikipedia is supposed to be political, spiritual, pov free. If you want to wish people a happy whatever do so privately and not on a wiki-wide board like simple talk. The fact that you would even argue about it to try and force these messages onto people when people have told you they don't like them blows my mind. Can't get much more disrespectful than that. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

How is that a POV? I don't get it, it's holiday wish not a "hey join my cause" thing. What about the disrespect to those that do celebrate it? Dj, you just seemed concerned with causing a ruckess over something no one else cares about. It's a holiday wish, it's meant to spread cheer. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that's the feeling I get from how your "fighting" this. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 17:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, I could go around saying hey celebrate my anti whatever cause...that would be just as disrespectful but I don't do it. Which is why we don't push either side of the issue and we keep it neutral by not saying anything. We keep it neutral so those of either position don't get disrespected and there are no issues. Respect the fact not everyone wants your propaganda pro-us stuff shoved in their faces. -DJSasso (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused, what does that have to do with my point? I just said it's holiday cheer, not "hey join my cause". CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 18:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Not everyone likes, supports or celebrates the holiday. For some the holiday isn't cheer. If I went around wishing cheer for I don't know International Nazi day do you think that would be ok? No it wouldn't be. Which is why on wikipedia which is a political/spiritual free zone you don't do such things out of mutual respect. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

How does Thanksgiving even remotely relate to the hate the Nazi's spread (thanks Godwin's Law)? I think you're stretching. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 18:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The point is various holidays mean cheer to various groups of people. While to other groups of people they don't mean cheer. I am sure for example the Nazi's enjoy their special day and don't think its a hate filled day. Whereas you would dislike and think its a horrible day. The whole point of using them as an example is to show that just because something means cheer to you it doesn't to others which is why we don't do any such things on the wiki from any particular group or belief. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This is my last response for a bit so others can weigh in. I'm sure today's neo-Nazis would be the first to tell you about their hatred. They're not ashamed of it. Second, Thanksgiving is not about a belief. It's about celebrating the harvest and spending time with family, it's about being thankful for what you have. So unless you're the most selfish person in the world, I doubt anyone, especially the few number of people on here, would find that offensive. But you're entitled to your opinion, however this is not a two-person argument. Let's see what others have to say. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 18:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it far more offensive you compare Thanksgiving to what you call International Nazi day. This is ridiculous. A day, which celebrates genocide, compared to a day of celebration/mourning (depending on how you want to see it). I feel personally offended by this comment, and I may not be the only one. Yottie=talk= 23:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If you read the links I posted you would see that to Native Americans Thanksgiving is a day that celebrates genocide, hence the connection. -DJSasso (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand the links explain it is to mourn the dead from genocide, whereas your reference to the Nazis is them being supportive of genocide, where millions of Jews and other people lost their lives. These two events are by no means the same. Shameful. Yottie=talk= 15:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

And you are clearly missing the point. What I am saying is that Native Americans feel that people who celebrate Thanksgiving are actually celebrating the genocide of Native Americans. In other words it would be similar to people celebrating a day that celebrated the genocide of Jews. The point is that topics like these should be left off the wiki. In fact you are all but proving my point here. By bringing these sorts of things onto the wiki it can create a hostile atmosphere for people who don't believe the same thing you do. -DJSasso (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting we both seem to always be involved in these conflicts. And the big difference in the things you compare, is that expressing neo-Nazi feelings is illegal in many countries (esp. in Europe, hence my utter disgust), and that only a minority interpret thanksgiving as offensive, when Americans say it is to celebrate the harvest of the year. End of argument I think, as you said, we don't want this hostile atmosphere (which was not created by the fact someone said happy thanksgiving, but by the fact you start comparing it to other things... I'll stop there, I think we are both as responsible). Yottie=talk= 15:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I see nothing wrong with such messages. If you don't feel concerned, then ignore it and carry on editing. People who make a fuss about such things are simply making a fuss for the sake of it. Yottie=talk= 14:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I really don't give a crap about this debate, but since everyone seems to be spending their time talking about this...could someone take a look at Wikipedia:Simple_talk#Wheeling_Tunnel_at_GA? Please and thank you. I figure since we're spending time on this, you might be able to spend a few minutes looking at the article! Thanks! Only (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

In a neutral perspective, I agree that harmony should be established by giving users such greetings, but I also agree that pasting your own nations/religions/cultures holidays or events publicly is a big no-no. The bridge we find is by making a personal message to someone you know will not be offended, such as a friend. Since there is no limit to how many you can make, you can wish Thanksgiving greetings to any users you know. Shakinglord (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Flags on Infobox country

Currently, {{Infobox country}} does not have an option to omit a flag. Can this be written into the template somehow, as it is needed on pages like Western Sahara and Kosovo. I cannot edit the template (I also have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to wiki markup). Osiris (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be cause it wasn't using infobox country.... Was using its own custom infobox for some reason. -DJSasso (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Alledged Humour

I noticed that English Wiki has a Wikipedia Humour section, and I wondered if the same section could be created here. i had some doubts, as we try to be simple here on Simple English, but I felt that I had to ask. Shakinglord (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think one of the main "problems" of humour is that it requires a pretty good skill of understanding the language. Humour often relies on word plays. The problems with that is that we are the "Simple English Wikipedia". At least some of the people here are language learners; they will most likely not understand most of the humor. But if you can comr up with a "format" that we can try, we might as well try it (porvided other people think so too; it is not on me to decide alone). --Eptalon (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

RFDs

Hey all! Just an FYI but there are too many SNOW or QD deletions that are being taken to RFD. Please consider more carefully which method of deletion action should be used. Thanks :) fr33kman 03:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Mistake

Is this the place to ask someone to correct a small spelling error in an article title? Is this called a "move"?

Sidebar

Hi everyone. I propose adding a link to the Administrators' Noticeboard in the getting around sidebar. Personally, I think it'd make it easier for new users to find where to go for administrator help. Thoughts? -Orashmatash- 22:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Support - is the getting around sidebar also called the navigation sidebar (the one of the left hand side under the search box)? DJDunsie (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, same bars, more simple name. The entire bar can be found under Mediawiki:Sidebar. The list there is the more official title of most of the pages. It links to the pages with the simple names (ie. Mediawiki:Recentchanges with the link title New Changes) 70.184.168.201 (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Support - WP:AN is definitely a more suitable place than the talk pages of random (and sometimes inactive) editors. ChenzwTalk 15:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally I would rather it not be on the sidebar so it doesn't get confused with simple talk. Simple talk is where people should come with questions and looking for help. Administrator notice board on the other hand is for things that need to be brought to administrator attention such as needing admin intervention in a dispute or clearing up a backlog etc. I think newer users would get the two mixed up quite easily if we had them both lists. I already see people getting them mixed up now without it being listed. As for on the help contents page that makes sense. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe if we added text similar to "WP:AN - For tasks that you need an administrator to do.", to the header of ST, it would make it less confusing? -Orashmatash- 17:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don't want AN in the sidebar, but I think it could be of some use to newcomers. Anyway could we make this possible (being able to chose whether or not it's on - on by default, off when you opt-out)? Yottie=talk= 19:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Having an opt-out for an item in the sidebar sounds just a bit like feature creep to me. I just don't see the point. --PhilosopherLet us reason together. 07:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It would likely be the same as the hide feature on the RfD page (and several others) that most people do not even know exists. 70.184.168.201 (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

@Philosopher: Well I would like to opt out. Any way it could be done(i.e. js, etc?)? Yottie=talk= 22:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yottie: yes... it could be done through JS. I support adding AN (but make sure its header explains the difference between ST and AN) πr2 (talk • changes) 05:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm guessing because an article can be the best article in the world and have no red links in the main article, but loads of red links in the references section can stop it from becoming a GA or VGA. -Orashmatash- 18:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That really doesn't answer my question. If you're taking an article to VGA (redlinks are not a criteria for GA) then you should be creating them as part of the work, or if you really have to delete them. Redlinks are extremely useful, and we should absolutely not be doing anything to remove them unless necessary - which this is not. AJona, care to expand why you want this to happen? Goblin 18:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Dendodge!

So create them or remove then manually, not that redlinks are an issue at PGA. Once again, have you actually read my reply above, where I've specifically described such a case as that you've stated. Furthermore, I'd be more worried about creating a consensus for lists ahead of nominating lists; at this rate they'll get speedily closed as we have no criteria, process or approval for them. Goblin 18:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie!

I'm lazy ;-) Heller, anyways, yes I'll do a consensus later. I'm still working on this project with other users. Best, Jonayo!Selena 4 ever 21:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Am I seriously meant to take that as a valid reason for what you suggest? Jesus. Furthermore, you can't 'do' a consensus. Either one is there through a discussion, or it isn't. Though I expect you'll go down the voting route, as ever. m:Voting is evil Finally, there's no need to continue spamming your 'project' everywhere. I'm sure the fact that you have 4 sign ups shows what the rest of us think of it... Goblin 11:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ PeterSymonds!